Defining Anarchy

[Selene]

Peter:

Higher population densities necessitate a means to arbitrate disputes and keep the peace.

Therefore, if you had a dense amount of Quakers jammed into an urban area - they would resort to violence and gang warfare.

You wouldn't by any chance have some evidence to support that assertion...?

It is interesting also, since there is significant evidence of the fact that population density has little to do with violence, unless you are referring to a scarcity of basic objective values to live issues...MS. XRAY SHIELD YOUR EYES FROM THIS SENTENCE , via the excellent work of Mr, John Lott. More Guns, Less Crime.

Therefore, since I have lots of facts and studies, do you have anything to support that statement above?

Adam

wondering how Gandhi was able to be the non violent gang leader in a kinda densely populated place?

[Peter]

I wrote:

Higher population densities necessitate a means to arbitrate disputes and keep the peace.

Adam wrote:

Therefore, if you had a dense amount of Quakers jammed into an urban area - they would resort to violence and gang warfare. You wouldn't by any chance have some evidence to support that assertion...?

end quote

I never made that assertion. You just did. You defend it. You injected a homogeneous community established over 2000 years of history, into the discussion, not me. When dealing with billions of people there will always be exceptions to a general rule. What are the odds that Quakers occurred twice over the history of humanity? I can’t quite figure you out. You seem to be going for the jugular by inventing a ninth grade straw-man.

Adam wrote:

Wondering how Gandhi was able to be the non violent gang leader in a kinda densely populated place?

End quote

Once again, Adam, you are dumbing down the discussion. Did the team you were rooting for lose?

I was talking about *people*. Adam, I suggest you walk down the densely populated streets of Baltimore about three blocks north of he inner harbor, around two in the morning and when a gun is shoved into your face, tell them in your best George Castanza imitation, “I have a private defense agency!”

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

I have been in places you would not go with a tank. Yes, I have been in Baltimore at 2 AM.

South side of Chicago and Philly also.

How about you come for a walk with me on St. Ann's Avenue in the Bronx? Or the Red Hook Projects by the Brooklyn Navy Yard?

What does that unconnected testimonial statement say about anything?

Myself, and a few others, have been attempting to discuss, if, and how, "it", Anarchism, could work. Frankly, I believe it can, does and has worked.

Half my family are in police and fire. Detectives. Arson investigators. Honor Guard Marines. My people come from the lower East side of Manhattan.

The question is can we and how can we establish market competition "agencies" that can function as well as the government police force that cannot protect you when you walk down that street in Baltimore at 2 A.M.

Humans will willing cooperate to protect their persons. property. family, pets and community. I think it can be done with market forces. Prove me wrong.

Adam

[Peter]

I was writing a reply directly onto OL when my power went out, and OL did not save what I had written. Crap. Now I am ticked off. Shucks, I’ll just take it out on anarchists.

8-)

Your listing of bad neigborhoods left out the Bombay of “Slumdog Millionaire,” that may not have Detroit murder rates but I think a whole lot of theivin’ is goin’ on. Maybe their murder rates are higher but just under reported. Now, that is people packed in like sardines, and certainly does NOT prove your contention that higher population densities, DO NOT necesitate a police force to ensure individual rights. They do.

Adam wrote:

Humans will willing(ly) cooperate to protect their persons. property. family, pets and community. I think it can be done with market forces. Prove me wrong.

end quote

It is already being done, so you are proven wrong. Neigborhood watches, personal handguns. home security sevices, corporate security services, and for the rich personal body guards. For the criminal classes, illegally held personal hand guns, drug gang enforcers, Tony Soprano’s boys, and for whores, their pimps.

So if more security forces are being required, on top of an overworked police departement, does this not prove that there will be legitimate and illegitmate disagreements and that Anarchy is well, hell, Anarchy?

Life is not Utopian Anarchy. Government is not perfect. People are not perfect, let alone Vulcans. Where is the disconnect?

I can hear you now. If I did not need to pay taxes, I could afford to hire my own police force, my own courts, my own military, I could build my own roads, and do all the things that Governments do today to ensure individual rights. I say that is a pipe dream. And I think you do to, or you would not be investing.energy in local political campaigns.

All who attempt to be Philosophical Anarchists are doomed to failure. If any of your “Will of the Wisps” did come true, in some locality, you would be, quite simply, doomed when the first Warlord arose, The first Charismatic Dictator gathered followers, or if Mexican gunboats entered Boston Harbor.

Any supposed gain in wealth if no taxes were paid will not change human nature. No government can change human nature. Anarchy cannot change human nature.

It would be nice to call up your personal cop, with your taxfree wealth and say: “Hey Joe. Me and my buddies want to go check out the nightlife from Greenwich Village to Harlem tonight. Can you make it with your considerable, sober bulk, licensced hand gun, and marked police car. What? OK. We promise to not sing or throw up. See you out front at 7, Joe.” Adam, it’s not going to happen.

Does Reason influence you? You bring up easily disproven red herrings. Will you always wiggle out of any argument others bring up? You can’t wiggle out of reality. Now this thought is an argument from intimidation and is used advisabley. Scorn does not intimidate you. If I were held in contempt by Ayn Rand, and 99 percent of the world’s human population, I would be ashamed.

La Viva Loca. I may have reached my limit on the subject of *NOTHING*.

Peter

[Selene]

Peter:

I am complete with this discussion. You seem to wish to conflate "high crime" with a reason for government in some manner.

Apparently, we cannot even come to a simple statement that a society organized anarchicly would mean:

x

y and

z

Not even being able to come to an agreed definition to anarchy, purely for the sake of discussion, or argument, eventually becomes fatal.

Crime is a definition of laws. Would that set of blocks in Baltimore that you referred to be as allegedly dangerous as you aver if ...

all drugs were free market driven

all (adult) prostitution were free market drive

all gambling was free market driven

just to name a few...

Adam

[Peter]

My point about crime is to illustrate that laws are needed. Crooks abound. Bullies abound. If we had no crime (including no victimless crimes) then it might be a time to say, let’s cut back on police services.

Adam wrote:

Crime is a definition of laws. Would that set of blocks in Baltimore that you referred to be as allegedly dangerous as you aver if ... all drugs were free market driven all (adult) prostitution were free market drive, all gambling was free market driven

end quote

In Bal’mer it is called “The Block,” but then if you go northwest a ways it is worse. Ordinary decent criminals of Italian descent control the block. About what you might find in seedier portions of Las Vegas. You can walk there at night. Cousin Vinny is watching. Then there’s Sparrows Point out near the shipyards, where I would not advise walking at night. A lot of Bal’mer was highlighted on the show “The Wire.”

Just those three legalizations would drive the prices down, and free trade if opium poppy from Afghanistan or the far east, and Coke from Columbia would change things for the better in both those two countries and here. Legalization could only happen one state at a time as with medical marijuana in California. It will never be on the national platform of the two major parties.

In a sense prostitution is legal, via the internet. Every once in while I will get an email from a Cricket, or some such name, and when I click on it, there are a bunch of girls, in my area, and they usually name a town near me, who want to “hook up” with me. I recently added more internet security so I will be watching to see if that stops. Stupid or desperate women still come out at night at least in one local small city and get busted.

Delaware is a gambling state. Maryland just became one, though I don’t think slots have started up locally. Most states have a lottery now.

I agree, the *Toll* is on people who are busted and on the state’s budgets. Evolution, not Revolution, is needed.

It’s bad enough being an atheist and selfish 8-) It may not be advisable to add *Nothing* to that list. Glad to hear neither of us wants to talk about *nothing* any more. We might agree 98 percent of the time on other issues. And we won’t need to go Amish on each other.

Peter

[Selene]

So Peter...

How long has it been that you have been a prejudiced bigot?

Adam

[Christopher]

I wonder whether there has ever been an example of a civilization without a justice system. Given the direction of the preceding conversation (and Rand's own views), it seems to me that anarchy most specifically pertains to justice which pertains to laws which pertain to rights.

The absence of justice would therefore be the absence of laws and therefore the absence of defined rights. In the absence of rights, the strongest/most cunning/most intelligent wins. So would that mean anarchy=jungle?

[Selene]

I wonder whether there has ever been an example of a civilization without a justice system. Given the direction of the preceding conversation (and Rand's own views), it seems to me that anarchy most specifically pertains to justice which pertains to laws which pertain to rights.

The absence of justice would therefore be the absence of laws and therefore the absence of defined rights. In the absence of rights, the strongest/most cunning/most intelligent wins. So would that mean anarchy=jungle?

No because anarchy has seven (7) letters.

It would have to be:

anarchy = jungles

Adam

[Christopher]

I stand corrected. Jungle is too centralized anyway

[Peter]

Christopher wrote:

I wonder whether there has ever been an example of a civilization without a justice system. . . The absence of justice would therefore be the absence of laws and therefore the absence of defined rights. In the absence of rights, the strongest/most cunning/most intelligent wins. So would that mean anarchy=jungle?

End quote

I suggest you Keep Philosophical Anarchists and Free Range Anarchists as separate categories.

Philosophical Anarchists are usually better educated and espouse their views from within the protection of a relatively free society, with leisure and surpluses. They reject any restrictions on their actions. The think a non-system of social interaction is better than any government, where each individual can do as they please until another Anarchist or group of Anarchists persuades or forces them to stop.

They say they are sure they can sustain individual rights and ensure justice because they and the people they will associate with, are capable of it. They point to themselves as proof and say, “I am rational enough, to freely and respectfully, interact with other individuals. Ayn Rand and many Objectivists hold these people to be contemptible and unworthy of association.

Free Range Anarchy, in contrast, is my way of describing an interim lack of government after migration, or for uncivilized people living under a family and clan system. They don’t deliberately choose Anarchy as a way of life, except in the sense that they may have been escaping something worse, such as savages or despotism. They are unable to articulate or establish a system that truly protects individual rights. These people are unsophisticated but not worthy of contempt. They deserve better and through cultural osmosis or interaction with civilizations they can become more civilized.

I would not consider Anarchy, under a free range system, the jungle. Generally all people have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this manifests itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. If this sociable sense did not exist, anthropologists insist, we would be extinct and not here today. Toddlers learn this from each other and mentors. Civility becomes the norm. I think those commercials showing Vikings bashing everyone are meant to be comical, and not as a true representation of free range anarchists.

Philosophical Anarchists also have a sense of self worth and sovereignty, and this can also manifest itself in mutually acceptable social behaviors. The problem is they have rejected a system that better guarantees multi-generational contracts and stability. There is no Capitalism in Anarchism. There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people, and a justice system founded on a government has always better guaranteed justice. Always. They cannot point to a successful *society* founded on, "What will be, will be." But of course, in the interim, no government is better than despotism.

A free trade, world market does exist, but even then, the participants have recourse to conflict resolution through contractually agreed arbitration, their governments, or the World Court. This is Capitalism, not an Anarchist Society.

Philosophical Anarchists may claim that their espousal of Anarchism is a way to fight runaway Government by supplying citizens with the intellectual ammunition to fight power creep. Or, they may be trying to start some commune where they will profit, or get you to buy into some get - rich - quick scheme, or they may simply wish for *niche notoriety* and followers.

Philosophical Anarchists are viewed by Rand as “Prudent Predators.” They know a successful Anarchist Society is laughably unlikely. But they are trying to scam others with a scheme that has no “referent in reality.” It is a flim - flam to bilk the gullible in some fashion, for some monetary or personal gain, for the Prudent Predator.

They may be selling a book or a commodity, or looking for follows, but I would suggest, “Buyer Beware!”

I am not speaking about any people who currently agree with the essentials of Objectivism, especially those called Tolerationists by some, when I say, Rand despised people who seemed to understand her philosophy but misrepresented it. They claim she was really an anarchist at heart. She was not. She hated people who cashed in on her fame, while misrepresenting her philosophy, and then preying on her adherents. And like Howard Roark I think she rarely thought about these Elsworth Tooey’s after denouncing them.

Peter

Edited January 26, 2010 by Peter Taylor

[Christopher]

Yes, a universally-educated populus is a big implicit assumption in many visions of successful (philosophical) anarchy. The fact is that as long as people keep being born, there will be uneducated, wild people running around. Not only does every child/young adult go through stages of rebellion and development, but many people never get out to see the other side of a truly "civilized" view (pe pe, monsieur). In fact, we ourselves might not be fully developed, so we would reject an even more virtuous society if we saw it coming from above.

As a result, society has to be built to accommodate people from all walks of life, all levels of personal development, and all sorts of weird moral systems. The U.S. did/does a pretty good job I think. As for anarchy, reality would probably show that there can only be "free-range" anarchy if there would be any type of anarchy.

Anarchy would fail, and fail like a goddamn firestorm.

Chris

[Peter]

Christopher wrote:

The fact is that as long as people keep being born, there will be uneducated, wild people running around. Not only does every child/young adult go through stages of rebellion and development, but many people never get out to see the other side of a truly "civilized" view . . .

end quote

True. And there are always criminals, charlatans like Bernie Maddof, charismatic leaders and future dictators, and other prudent predators.

Christopher wrote:

As a result, society has to be built to accommodate people from all walks of life, all levels of personal development, and all sorts of weird moral systems . . Anarchy would fail, and fail like a goddamn firestorm.

End quote

Hear, Hear!

I wrote:

There are legitimate disagreements among reasonable people, and a justice system founded on a government has always better guaranteed justice. Always. They cannot point to a successful *society* founded on, "What will be, will be." But of course, in the interim, no government is better than despotism.

End quote

The anarchist cannot point to a successful society, other than a few half mythical agrarian anarchist communities like Iceland. In spite of its 300 year longevity, I don’t think Iceland is a good example, because it had simple “government.”

The people called “Chieftains” were really ombudsman and lawyers, who applied cultural norms of morality for their constituents. They argued cases in front of an agreed upon arbitrator. Anarchists use it as proof of success by saying: you could stop using one chieftain and use another, so therefore these were multiple defense agencies and systems of justice. I find that argument far fetched. It was one system of justice with multiple lawyers. I have a thread that thrashes this question to death if anyone wants it.

I think intuition is a wonderfully creative tool, if later verified by reason. I am not asking that anyone divulge their intuition, unless they so desire.

But here is the syllogism for your intuitive guess: Is the possibility of justice and the upholding of individual rights greater in one society verses another, over a multi-generational period of time? Which is better at creating a civilization? (Of course, I am stacking the deck with this one. There never has been an Anarchic Civilization, so substitute a hypothetical Philosophical Anarchic Civilization.) Which has demonstrated it is better? The Anarchy I am discussing is Philosophical Anarchism, unless otherwise specified.

Philosophical Anarchy or Communism?

Philosophical Anarchy or Socialism?

Philosophical Anarchy or Fascism?

Philosophical Anarchy or interim anarchy?

Philosophical Anarchy or typical Constitutional Monarchy?

Philosophical Anarchy or typical Constitutional Government?

Philosophical Anarchy or Randian Constitutional Government?

My final call upon your intuition is this: If established, how long do you think it would be, before Philosophical Anarchism evolves into something else, and what would it likely be?

Peter

[Selene]

And there will always be narrow minded bigot's like yourself who categorize groups of people.

Adam

[jeffrey smith]

I think that the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist claims fail on one essential point. They seem to think that if you don't have a formal institutionalized system that calls itself government, you don't have a government.

I think that even with a system of multiple individual defense agencies, arbitrators, etc. you would have government--it would operate informally, and would consist of all those agencies, arbitrators, etc.

The purpose of government is protect individuals from aggression and coercion. Whatever does that in the society you set up would be the government, regardless of the formalities.

And that leaves aside the assumption that free market competition would be in and of itself the only thing needed to keep those private agencies honest, which ignores the problem of 'who guards the guards?' If you want to defend against aggression, you have to make sure that your defenders decide to do some aggression against you.

Jeffrey S.

PS--Biblical Israel before the Monarchical period was not a capitalist anarchy; it was ruled by a system of tribal elders, prophets and priests and the Judges of the Bible, who once they were recognized as "Judges" tended to hold a position of authority for the rest of their lives.

Edited January 27, 2010 by jeffrey smith

[Selene]

I think that the anarchist/anarcho-capitalist claims fail on one essential point. They seem to think that if you don't have a formal institutionalized system that calls itself government, you don't have a government.

I think that even with a system of multiple individual defense agencies, arbitrators, etc. you would have government--it would operate informally, and would consist of all those agencies, arbitrators, etc.

The purpose of government is protect individuals from aggression and coercion. Whatever does that in the society you set up would be the government, regardless of the formalities.

And that leaves aside the assumption that free market competition would be in and of itself the only thing needed to keep those private agencies honest, which ignores the problem of 'who guards the guards?' If you want to defend against aggression, you have to make sure that your defenders decide to do some aggression against you.

Jeffrey S.

Jeffrey:

I understand you observation. Apparently, the issue is a "monopoly". With separate competing agencies we do not have an actual monopoly. However, there would be cooperation between those agencies which would, en toto, perform the same objective function of government, in theory.

Who guards the guards now? Other humans. I do not believe that we can ever escape that chicken egg issue.

One of my favorite quotes is from the Congressional debates on the 14th Amendment, as Representative Perry noted,

"Sheriffs, having eyes to see, see not; judges, having ears to hear, hear not ....

In the presence of these gangs all the apparatus and machinery of civil government, all the processes of justice,

skulk away as if government and justice were crimes and feared detection."

Adam

[Peter]

The wise Jeffrey Smith wrote:

I think that even with a system of multiple individual defense agencies, arbitrators, etc. you would have government--it would operate informally, and would consist of all those agencies, arbitrators, etc. The purpose of government is protect individuals from aggression and coercion. Whatever does that in the society you set up would be the government, regardless of the formalities.

End quote

I agree. Even if a Philosophical Anarchist Society were established, with a unanimously signed contract, the contract would evolve into schisms, majorities, hierarchies and Government. (Or worse: Gangs and a dictatorship.) If children are being born, the evolution may be completed more quickly.

The first group of “educated” teenagers will establish a counter culture. I have mentioned this before in a joking manner, but teenagers who read and are influenced by philosophical and theoretical heretics of Anarchism would hasten the demise of The Contract, if the original Founders have not already splintered. This IS our human nature.

The show, “Big Love,’ dramatizes the plight of polygamous Fundamentalist Mormons who follow the tenets of the original Mormon Bible, which sanctions plural marriages. The path they follow is called “The Principle.” They try to keep their society, “closed” while living in relatively dense population centers in Utah. The Amish have also been around for quite a while, while maintaining a viable community.

My point is this. The solidarity and longevity of these Societies is based on mystical religious dogma, and less secular education. These communities are not Anarchies. Philosophical Anarchists would be better educated, and rational but perhaps even more prone to personally insolvable disagreements. Look at reality for your proof.

Jeffrey Smith wrote:

. . . you have to make sure that your defenders decide to do some aggression against you.

end quote

Justice must be blind. If you are wrong, you must submit to the rule of Justice, no matter how much it might rankle.

Peter

[Xray]

Xray wrote:

"In interpersonal relationships, there are only two fundamental choices: Initiation of force and coercion, or non-initiation of force and non coercion . . . This would oppose Rand's idea of government as a "necessity" for settling of disputes. She does not consider (as you did) the potential for the parties to mutually select and hire an arbiter in case of dispute. (end quote Xray)

Rand agreed on the advisability of personal defense agencies or personal arbitration as long as it existed under the umbrella of a Constitutional Government guaranteeing individual rights. Her apartment building existed as a personal contract between the owner and Rand. There was a doorman who enforced rules of admittance. There was probably an association to handle neighborly disputes. Give Rand the benefit of the doubt before you formulate some theory of IF - THEN – THEREFORE, BINGO, Rand was wrong. “Ay Layk Ayn.” That’s archaic Icelandic for “I like Ayn.”

Suppose your much-'layked' Ayn had had any political power to put in practice what she preached, would you have 'layked' to live in society where her so-called objectivist values ruled? Do you really believe she would have accepted it if people told her they want no part of it?

The way in which she made Howard Roark or Galt & Co in AS 'take care' of those who didn't happen to share their values, as well as the collectvist spirit of the little objectvist paradise Galt's Gulch leaves no doubt in my mind what Rand would have done with dissenters.

That she called her closest advocates "The Collective" is therefore not surprising.

Edited January 27, 2010 by Xray

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

Suppose your much-'layked' Ayn had had any political power to put in practice what she preached, would you have 'layked' to live in society where her so-called objectivist values ruled?

End quote

Absolutely. In my own life I practice what I preach. My word is my bond. I will give you an example. My Dad, now deceased, was a well known Delaware VIP. He was a VFW Post commander, then the Vice Commander for Delaware and then the VFW State Commander. He lived and breathed politics, and if he had not been ill near the end of his life, he probably would have run for office, though the VEEP Biden clan were an obstacle.

He was also a master manipulator. Our family’s fame could also be said to be notoriety. Because of our notoriety, when I was courting my wife back in the early 1970’s I swore to her I would never cheat. She believed me, and married me. My word is my bond. I have never cheated. Only a fool would say that if it were not true. No one would claim such a distinction in small town Delaware unless it were true. Everybody knows everybody’s business.

I am as honest as the day is long. I have been entrusted with large sums of money. It was easy for people to put their trust in me because I am an Objectivist. I live the essentials of Objectivism. I can say all this proudly on the internet! I do not fear, equivocate or hide.

Xray wrote:

That she called her closest advocates "The Collective" is therefore not surprising.

End quote

It was a joke. A joke against Communism. I once called someone (Brant) about ten years ago, a Capitalist Tool as a compliment but he took great OFFENSE. He would not take offense today.

Xray wrote:

Do you really believe she would have accepted it if people told her they want no part of it?

End quote

A is A. Or course, Ayn would accept reality. Is that meant as a joke, like my joke to Mr Gaede? Millions DO WANT a part of it! You are here on OL because you gravitate toward the rational and benevolent. After just this short exchange, I think you know how I could make you feel bad about yourself. I am my Dad’s son. But I won’t make you feel bad deliberately. It would be interesting to know about you. Wait a while and then re-read Rand starting with the teen age Ayn in “We The Living.”

Xray wrote:

The unfeeling way in which Galt & Co 'took care' of those who didn't happen to share their values leaves no doubt in my mind what Rand would have done with dissenters.

End quote

Pacifism is immoral. Self defense is moral. If the Government cannot protect you it is moral for you to protect yourself. Collateral damage is a three page subject I do not wish to discuss at this time.

I will leave you with a chuckle Xray. I wrote this letter to my brother and sister in November 2009. After reading my letter, their reminisces would fill another multi page letter.

My Dad was a cumshaw artist, which is a word from Chinese, that originally meant “grateful tip,” and I found another definition from the Coast Guard.

“Cumshaw": In the Coast Guard, at least (this may be an incident of perpetual under-funding), the commonest definition of "cumshaw" verb is pretty much identical to your first definition of "scrounge" verb. To cumshaw is to get by irregular means--exchanging favors, calling in debts, cutting corners with procurement--what an individual Coastie, a group, a cutter, or the like should be able to get by regular ones. The Chief cumshawed a spare prop for the 41-footer.”

In the Navy it is pronounced comm-shaw.

During WWII, as a Chief B’osn’s Mate Dad had a reputation, in the 7th fleet. His stories could have been scripts for McHale’s Navy. Misdirection. The con. Stealth. I remember him talking to his friend Barney and others, saying the Seabees were the hardest to cumshaw from because they guarded their materials so well. If they caught you, you would get a rifle butt to the head.

He was busted officially twice that I know of, and had in-unit punishments several times. Dad would “lift” “steal” or “cumshaw” anything. Not just for his unit, but for his home too. For fun.

Remember, when he stole those building materials and hid them at our home at Fort Campbell? He made a bad mistake by only waiting a month to build that sun porch on the back of the house. Remember how the back yard dipped down into a bowl? Someone recognized that green Plexiglas he put over the porch and told on him.

The last times be was busted, that I know of, was at XXXXX Base. I was with him when he was cumshawing toiletries in the truck of our car, and he was busted at the gate. The Duty Officer who showed up in a mysteriously quick fashion, humiliated Dad in front of me.

One earlier incident was particularly hard on me because I contributed to his arrest.

I think I was six or seven years old. I listened to what my parents said, as did you I’m sure, and I had heard Dad tell Mom, that if she had any aches or pains like cramps, to take one or two APC’s (all purpose capsules that had an opium derivative in them). He bragged to Mom that he had cumshawed a jar with a thousand pills.

I went and looked at the jar, where he had it hidden it, when no one was around. Yeah, it did look like a thousand pills.

About a week later, another Chief came to our Door, when no one was home but me. Mom had just left. He may have been watching the house. I recognized him from Dad’s base but didn’t remember his name. He politely introduced himself and I let him in.

He said he would wait for Dad, who would be home soon.

You know how some things are etched into your memory for life because of what happened later?

He sat down and said, “Boy, do I have a headache. Do you have any aspirin here”

“Sure! I’ll get you some. You want a beer with that, Chief?” I asked. I remember actually opening beers for fellow Chiefs at around age 5! And I never called them just Chief. It was always Chief Brown or whatever their last name was.

“No, waters fine,” he said. “Wow, this is a bad headache. Do your parents have anything stronger?”

“Sure. My Dad has a jar of APC’s,” I dumbly said.

“Yeah, that would be better. Get me two of those.”

I went to get them but the jar was gone. “Sorry, Chief, the APC’s are all gone.”

Dad had taken some but I’m sure there were still nearly a thousand pills in the jar. I think Dad was trying to put the pills back where they came from.

The Chief then gently questioned me about things like, did my Dad nap a lot, or act a bit odd in the last several days or weeks?

Of course, you have it figured out that Dad’s friend was there to bust Dad for the theft. I did not know anything was wrong until just before he left. The Chief’s face started to get red and he got angrier and angrier.

My Dad’s friend, this other Chief was assigned to defend the medic, in an in-house military trial, like the Army’s article 14. The corpsman, I think they called medics back then, had a key to the medicine cabinet where the thousand APC’s went missing.

The medic had been accused of the theft and what really got Dad slammed was the fact that he was going to let the medic take the rap.

Dad, to his credit, asked me what I had told the other Chief, and did not scold me. In fact he said, “I’ve taught you not to lie. You did the right thing.” But, then he had his head in his hands and said, “Ah Jeez.” He was nearly crying.

As you both remember, Dad finally made it to the officer’s ranks after volunteering to “freeze his ass off in Antarctica.”

As I was thinking about Dad’s nefarious exploits, I thought about a couple of other things. As you know, Dad was well-known, in Navy circles. Everything, even the in-house stuff, stays on your record, even though they say it will be expunged before you are reassigned. We, the family knew about his up and down career of course, if you were there, and if you were old enough to understand. I received derision from other Navy brats, who overheard the adults talking about Dad.

Around 1964 I got Dad to read James Clavell’s, “King Rat.” He was fascinated by the character, and saw many similarities between himself and the title character, but I remember him saying, “I was never as bad as that bastard.”

The missing medicine bottle caper that I mentioned, was around 1954. I’m sure you all are glad to know Dad was rehabilitated.

From 1955 until 1966 he was very much in the orient. We lived in Hawaii and Japan, but behind the scenes? He would be assigned to a ship, I remember the Seaplane tender, Vincennes was one, but then he would be mysteriously reassigned to some admiral after he got to the Pacific Rim.

He never bragged about what he was doing for the brass, but from what I could pick up, he was in charge of “special” procurements, greasing palms, and fixing things. He proudly brought home a commendation from the mayor and counsel of Hong Kong Colony. I can’t find that. He never said why he got it. He had a “life time key” to the Hong Kong Hilton, (a room, anytime, for free, the key is huge and made of brass) that I still have as a souvenir.

The US Navy utilized his special talents. He was fulfilled.

That last assignment at Sasebo, was not good. He knew virtually nothing about munitions storage and he wanted out of the Navy.

If you guys can remember any stories I would appreciate hearing about them.

My wife thinks I am wrong to write this about our dearly loved father. But I’m OK with who he was.

end of letter

I hope my cut and paste went well. Skip over, if it did not. Obama is droning on and on, on the TV.

I just spent an hour of my life responding to you Ms. German. Will you give Ayn another chance?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

Steve Gagne wrote:

Actually, Peter, there is a historical record that describes an anarcho-capitalist society that survived for over 200 years, from c.1200 B.C.E. to c.1000 B.C.E . . .

And Iceland, and our old west. I don’t dispute that agrarian societies have existed in relative peace unless invaded. But Civilizations did not arise unless a more organized State apparatus also arose. Look at the history of trade routes,

It exists here and now. You can find tendril roots going back, but basically, for about 50 years, corporations have consciously been actors on par with and superior to nations. Collectivists left and right, nationalists and anti-globalists and others, all oppose this, are shocked by it. You can find videos here decrying the "money masters." The fact is that G4S and Securitas are the two largest transnational security forces, employing tens of thousands of guards in dozens of places, under contract to hundreds of entities.

The European multinational ABB keeps its books in dollars. They are not alone in that.

Moreover, ad hoc tribunals bring war criminals to justice and remediate conflicts where nations have failed.

The American Arbitration Association (www.adr.org for alternative dispute resolution) earns millions of dollars a year settling points for less than what we pay for parking tickets.

This is the way the world works.

A hundred years ago or 150 corporations, businesses, people, saw themselves as extensions of their homelands. When the British East India Company struck its own silver coins, to pay their own army, they put Queen Victoria on them. But today, corporations understand themselves to be independent of nations.

This is the way the world really works.

As for trade routes. Trade routes are marketable goods or services, values controlled by some and sold for use to others. Safe routes, efficient routes are not free, have value, and are not (necessarily) protected by governments, but by NGOs (to put it nicely). These operate in Africa and on the high seas.

Edited January 28, 2010 by Michael E. Marotta

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

It exists here and now. You can find tendril roots going back, but basically, for about 50 years, corporations have consciously been actors on par with and superior to nations. The European multinational ABB keeps its books in dollars. They are not alone in that.

end quote

Thanks for the history lesson Michael. That was great. I see this trend of corporate sovereignty, as a wonderful thing, unlike the movie, “Avatar.” Just please don’t call it Anarchy. Respectibility is not a bad thing. When someone describes an affinity for anarchy, in their business dealings, they lose a sale. It should be described as Capitalism.

Michael wrote:

The American Arbitration Association (www.adr.org for alternative dispute resolution) earns millions of dollars a year settling points for less than what we pay for parking tickets.

end quote

I would want to hear comments from people who were dissatisfied with the arbitrated results.

Michael wrote:

This is the way the world works. A hundred years ago or 150 corporations, businesses, people, saw themselves as extensions of their homelands. When the British East India Company struck its own silver coins, to pay their own army, they put Queen Victoria on them. But today, corporations understand themselves to be independent of nations.

end quote

Nestle, Cadbury, Food Lion, McDonalds, WalMarts. Multi national is a good thing. What I worry about is a global melt down, as when China’s bubble bursts. When it does we will hopefully have a fiscally responsible President and congress, so even though home based multinational corporations will be affected we will be somewhat insulated.

I want to see the prosperity generated by Laissez Faire Capitalism in my life time, instead of the current, steady decline. As recently as the 50’s and 60’s an average man could have his own home with a stay at home Mom who did not have to work outside the home. Those days are gone but can still be nostalgically viewed on old sitcoms like, “Father Knows Best,” and “Leave it to Beaver.”

I do not advertise that I am an Atheist, because too many people immediately feel uneasy about that. If I harbored an affinity for anarchy, I would not adverise the fact for the same personal and business reasons. It just makes good sense.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[syrakusos]

When someone describes an affinity for anarchy, in their business dealings, they lose a sale. It should be described as Capitalism.

In the words of historian Ernst Samhaber (Merchants Make History; John Day, 1964), a good merchant never argues religion with his clients. So, yes, I agree that discussing religion and politics usually does little for the bottom line. That said, Ayn Rand's moral challenge via Atlas Shrugged was centered on sanction of the victim. Hank Rearden refused to sell his Metal to the State Science Institute. John Galt, of course, withheld his converter; Francisco kept to himself his improved furnace; Dr. Hendricks never shared his portable x-ray. The problem for us becomes a daily struggle. You fill up at the pump, decide to pay inside and find some kind of religious talisman behind the clerk. Do you ever fill up there again? Where would that end? We see it here among ourselves where people excommunicate each other over minor points of ideology. I understand the inconvenience of argument, but there is no mistaking the fact that these boards all have prisons wherein those who disagree too much are limited until they show that they can get along better by agreeing more.

After watching the Glenn Beck video on Leftwing Fascism, I looked for links about Che Guevara's racism and discovered RevLeft http://www.revleft.com, the world's largest BBS for left wing discussions (they claim). A few minutes there showed them to be the mirror world of other boards you might know better.

What has happened is that we have selected ourselves by ideology. That is a point I have made several times by reference to THE BIG SORT. We hang out with people we agree with and this is also, apparently, a class thing: middle class people do it; working class people do not. If you want discussion, join a bowling team, not a reading club.

So, I say here and on RoR and another place or two, that we already do live in a world where the so-called "anarcho-capitalist" model works well. Corporations transcend nations. Economic entities overshadow political units. But rather than asking for more data -- or gosh! taking the hint and finding more -- the immediate reaction to argue Medieval Iceland and other nonsense. The motive is two-fold. First, cognitive dissonance must be reduced, i.e., you cannot admit that you were wrong; and second, the dissenter must be argued back into line to reassert the hegemony of the culture, in this case Objectivism.

Lest I be misunderstood on this, MSK is easily one of the more (or most) tolerant and tolerable sysops. He puts up with a lot and warns with a word. Joseph Rowlands of Rebirth of Reason is also a paragon. Others don't stack up so well. But it is not limited to Objectivism, of course.

One of my favorite sociology blogs is ORGANIZATIONS AND MARKETS a place where Hayek and Mises have good visibility. Another, less disposed to open markets, but tolerable is ORG THEORY. It was from the former that I found the link "Do Multinationals Restrain the State?" I already posted that in the "Global Capitalism" topic, so I will only place theLINK to that here.

[Peter]

Michael E. Marotta wrote:

You fill up at the pump, decide to pay inside and find some kind of religious talisman behind the clerk. Do you ever fill up there again? Where would that end?

End quote

I went into a store, and the owner was not a Christian, but a Muslim. He listens to English language broadcasts with an extremist outlook. He wanted his English speaking customers to hear how bad America was! I did go in more than once but decided not to any more.

Years ago I went to a business and the guy had pictures of Nazis and Klansmen on the walls. I do not appreciate either group but the Nazis were just too much. We fought those bastards in the Second World War. I recently had the same business to conduct, but did not seek him out.

Generally business is business without a purity test.

Michael wrote:

We see it here among ourselves where people excommunicate each other over minor points of ideology.

End quote

Isn’t that odd? Two people are very close to essential agreement, but the closer they get to an ideal the more the non-adherence to the ideal becomes important. It’s almost Jonathon Swiftian. I try to keep that fanaticism out of my own thinking but it is difficult, when I have assimilated a complete, a non-contradictory system like Objectivism.

I could be talking to a business acquaintance and she might say, Obama should take over the auto industry. I would disagree with her but we would still do business. If a person who says they are in sync with the essentials of Ayn Rand said that, I would have a conniption fit.

Michael wrote:

First, cognitive dissonance must be reduced, i.e., you cannot admit that you were wrong; and second, the dissenter must be argued back into line to reassert the hegemony of the culture, in this case Objectivism.

end quote

Unimpeachable, Perfect logic. Pure Science. Verifiable facts. And you still don’t understand? AARRRG! 8-) It is difficult to say you are wrong. It is even more difficult to say you are wrong when you intuitively know you are right but cannot successfully rebut the opposition.

Someone once suggested that I stop trying to CONVINCE THEM, but instead, seek to simply rebut their argument and then I won’t lose my cool. Easier said than done.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Xray]

[All quotes: Peter Taylor]

My word is my bond. I have never cheated. Only a fool would say that if it were not true.

No one would claim such a distinction in small town Delaware unless it were true. Everybody knows everybody’s business.

Do you really believe every cheater will automatically be 'found out' in your "small town Delaware"? You have left out the variable "away from home", like business trips, travels abroad, etc.

I'm not implying that I don't believe you, for I do. I'm just pointing out aspects you have failed to take into account in your argumentation.

Xray wrote:

"That she called her closest advocates "The Collective" is therefore not surprising." End quote

It was a joke. A joke against Communism.

As for jest, it can reveal a lot.

I once called someone (Brant) about ten years ago, a Capitalist Tool as a compliment but he took great OFFENSE. He would not take offense today.

Did he tell you that he wouldn't take offense today?

I can imagine what didn't sit well with Brant Gaede was you calling him a Capitalist 'tool'. For a tool can have no thoughts of its own, it is a mere instrument employed by others. People don't want to be regarded as 'tools'.

Xray wrote:

Do you really believe she would have accepted it if people told her they want no part of it?

End quote

A is A. Or course, Ayn would accept reality. Is that meant as a joke, like my joke to Mr Gaede?

No, it was not meant as a joke.

Being confronted with reality is one thing, reacting to it is another. So while Rand may of course have realized it if others wanted no part of her Objectivist world, it does not imply that she would have done nothing about it.

Millions DO WANT a part of it!

Is quality in numbers? If that were true, fast food and soap operas would head the 'list of best' as well.

You are here on OL because you gravitate toward the rational and benevolent.

What precisely makes you think that?

After just this short exchange, I think you know how I could make you feel bad about yourself.

No, I don't know. I haven't the slightest idea.

I am my Dad’s son.

I have to smile here since as a kindergarten teacher, I'm very familiar with little boys telling me how 'strong and powerful' their daddies are.

But I won’t make you feel bad deliberately.

On what premise do you base your belief that you can make me feel bad at all?

I will leave you with a chuckle Xray.

....

My Dad was a cumshaw artist, which is a word from Chinese, that originally meant “grateful tip,”

...

Oh, I'm familiar with the type. In fact 'cumshawing' is so frequent among humans that is impossible not to come across several exemplars in a lifetime.

The medic had been accused of the theft and what really got Dad slammed was the fact that he was going to let the medic take the rap.

Again, not exactly a rare phenomenon: people letting others take the rap because they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.

“I’ve taught you not to lie.”

Another frequent phenomenon: not practising what one preaches.

Fascinating how often people demand of others what they are not willing to practise themselves, isn't it?

I just spent an hour of my life responding to you Ms. German.

Ditto from me Mr. Taylor. So the clock can be reset again.

Will you give Ayn another chance?

Should I ever read anything from Rand which changes my opinion of her philosophy, I'll let you know.

Edited January 30, 2010 by Xray

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

Being confronted with reality is one thing, reacting to it is another. So while Rand may of course have realized it if others wanted no part of her Objectivist world, it does not imply that she would have done nothing about it.

End quote

I am trying to figure out what YOU THINK she would have done about IT.

Let us move backward and sideways, to a time and place where Rand is considered a Founding Mother, to a place we call . . . “The Twilight Zone. “

President Newt Gingrich has slashed every law and regulation proclaimed through Presidential edict. He surpassed former President Reagan’s forty thousand deletions, by another one hundred thousand deletions of unnecessary red tape. Within ninety days of President Gingrich’s swearing in, Congress has enacted sunset laws on all taxation, The Supreme Court has affirmed the opinion of Rand vs. The Government of the United States, that neither the President nor The Congress can exceed their strictly defined duties as enumerated in the Constitution.

In his first State of The Union Message President Gingrich said, ”The People are my boss. Our constitutional government is there to protect individual rights. Rights are the principle on which society must be organized. My presidency will preserve The People’s ability to act rationally, independently, and productively. I will protect you from the initiation of force. I will only use retaliatory force against those who ignore this basic law.”

The President surrounds himself with talented people. His closest advisor is Ayn Rand. Rand is primarily a philosopher but is happy to be there for her adopted country.

Now what will the President’s right hand person do to those who do not understand, or agree with Objectivism, yet they still do not initiate force? There are still people in The Twilight Zone who are religious, and people who clamor for more government services even if it means they will be taxed more. There are still people (as on this Anarchy thread) who espouse doctrines that she opposes.

What Rand will do is advise. She will work on systems of voluntary taxation. She will not violate anyone’s individual rights. She may not have a private dinner with a Libertarian, or a Tolerationist, or an Anarchist, but she will not violate their rights. You are free to do as you please.

Now that you are free of that worry, Ms German, what NEED do you have to be on Objectivist Living?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor